Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should he no government restrictions on what they do.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
An none-restriction environment could be the Garden of Eden for some genius artists, where they will compose more masterpieces. Although art industry may make progress without the government regulations, I do not agree with the idea of stopping regulating these artists.
The creative artists can express whatever they want through their works without the government rules. Artists can be hard to make breakthroughs with the restrictions, because some of their ideas are actually out of the regulations. For example, enormous milestone works of art were produced in the Renaissance, when the restrictions were especially the least in the history.
However, the works of art could not be socially acceptable without the restrictions from the government. Usually, the government use restrictions to keep the artists in the bounds boundaries, like no drugs, no porn, etc. These artists may produce some work which is just the experiments of the new art forms, and the general public may not accept them and even resist them, which will cause disastrous impacts on the artists.
In addition, social unrest may be caused if the government doesn't restrict the creative artists. For example, some of them might receive or observe the social injustice in the past, and they could express their anger through their works, which will evoke public sympathy or resentment towards the particular class of people or even the society, and as the consequence, social chaos will be inevitable.
In conclusion, I would agree that the government should not impose no restrictions on creative artists, although it can be the impetus for their ingenuities. No-restriction environment can have adverse impacts both on the society and the artists themselves.
(273 words)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
no-restrictions environment for artists
An none-restriction environment could be the Garden of Eden for some genius artists, where they will compose more masterpieces. Although art industry may make progress without the government regulations, I do not agree with the idea of stopping regulating these artists.
The creative artists can express whatever they want through their works without the government rules. Artists can be hard to make breakthroughs with the restrictions, because some of their ideas are actually out of the regulations. For example, enormous milestone works of art were produced in the Renaissance, when the restrictions were especially the least in the history.
However, the works of art could not be socially acceptable without the restrictions from the government. Usually, the government use restrictions to keep the artists in the bounds boundaries, like no drugs, no porn, etc. These artists may produce some work which is just the experiments of the new art forms, and the general public may not accept them and even resist them, which will cause disastrous impacts on the artists.
In addition, social unrest may be caused if the government doesn't restrict the creative artists. For example, some of them might receive or observe the social injustice in the past, and they could express their anger through their works, which will evoke public sympathy or resentment towards the particular class of people or even the society, and as the consequence, social chaos will be inevitable.
In conclusion, I would agree that the government should not impose no restrictions on creative artists, although it can be the impetus for their ingenuities. No-restriction environment can have adverse impacts both on the society and the artists themselves.
(273 words)
